Re: Fedora release criteria completely revised

2009-12-11 Thread James Laska
On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 07:11 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: On 12/07/2009 10:55 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: In https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_13_Beta_Release_Criteria under Beta Release Requirements, Item 10 The installer must be able to successfully complete an upgrade

Re: Fedora release criteria completely revised

2009-12-11 Thread Ralf Ertzinger
Hi. On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 07:11:52 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: manually. Does this mean that the Fedora officially Supports upgrades now? Were upgraded installs not always supported, as long as the upgrade did not take place within the running system? -- fedora-devel-list mailing list

Re: Fedora release criteria completely revised

2009-12-11 Thread James Laska
On Mon, 2009-12-07 at 14:55 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: During FUDCon, we've been working on revising the Fedora release criteria. John Poelstra had already fleshed out a structure and much of the final content, and we've been revising and tweaking it in conjunction with QA (myself, Will

Re: Fedora release criteria completely revised

2009-12-11 Thread Jesse Keating
On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 10:53 -0500, James Laska wrote: Not sure if this has been raised yet, but are we specifying when in the release that packages should be signed with a valid signature? I believe packages are signed at all release milestones, but I'd like to clear up that assumption.

Re: Fedora release criteria completely revised

2009-12-11 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 10:53:40 -0500, James Laska jla...@redhat.com wrote: Not sure if this has been raised yet, but are we specifying when in the release that packages should be signed with a valid signature? I believe packages are signed at all release milestones, but I'd like to

Re: Fedora release criteria completely revised

2009-12-11 Thread Adam Williamson
On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 10:53 -0500, James Laska wrote: Not sure if this has been raised yet, but are we specifying when in the release that packages should be signed with a valid signature? I believe packages are signed at all release milestones, but I'd like to clear up that assumption. Do

Re: Fedora release criteria completely revised

2009-12-11 Thread James Laska
On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 08:20 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 10:53 -0500, James Laska wrote: Not sure if this has been raised yet, but are we specifying when in the release that packages should be signed with a valid signature? I believe packages are signed at all

Re: Fedora release criteria completely revised

2009-12-09 Thread John Poelstra
Adam Williamson said the following on 12/08/2009 07:12 AM Pacific Time: On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 15:07 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: Plus, why was the KDE SIG not invited? (We had at least 4 KDE SIG folks present at FUDCon.) We had a pre-hackfest meeting for the whole FUDCon attendee list where

Re: Fedora release criteria completely revised

2009-12-09 Thread Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
On Monday, 07 December 2009 at 23:55, Adam Williamson wrote: [...] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_13_Alpha_Release_Criteria https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_13_Beta_Release_Criteria 16. Automatic mounting on insertion of removable media must work It should be clarified with ...

Re: Fedora release criteria completely revised

2009-12-09 Thread Adam Williamson
On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 09:19 -0500, Colin Walters wrote: Hi Adam, Looks really great in general! Thanks! One specific comment, for Final 9; I think we need a more specific definition of and subsequent login. Does that mean that you just type your username/password and look at the

Re: Fedora release criteria completely revised

2009-12-09 Thread Colin Walters
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: This is what it was intended to mean, actually running apps I would have defined as 'login and use'. How would you suggest wording a clarification? Looking at it again, it's fairly clear that this just covers the

Re: Fedora release criteria completely revised

2009-12-09 Thread Adam Williamson
On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 14:54 +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: On Monday, 07 December 2009 at 23:55, Adam Williamson wrote: [...] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_13_Alpha_Release_Criteria https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_13_Beta_Release_Criteria 16. Automatic mounting

Re: Fedora release criteria completely revised

2009-12-08 Thread Andy Green
On 12/07/09 23:55, Somebody in the thread at some point said: Hi - these pages, not nice-to-haves. You must be able to commit to the idea that, if any criterion on the page is not met, we would slip the release in question. I think it's great you guys are looking to increase

Re: Fedora release criteria completely revised

2009-12-08 Thread Kevin Kofler
Adam Williamson wrote: During FUDCon, we've been working on revising the Fedora release criteria. John Poelstra had already fleshed out a structure and much of the final content, and we've been revising and tweaking it in conjunction with QA (myself, Will Woods and James Laska), release

Re: Fedora release criteria completely revised

2009-12-08 Thread Colin Walters
Hi Adam, Looks really great in general! One specific comment, for Final 9; I think we need a more specific definition of and subsequent login. Does that mean that you just type your username/password and look at the default desktop? Are we scoping in any specific apps (firefox?) Under any

Fedora release criteria completely revised

2009-12-07 Thread Adam Williamson
During FUDCon, we've been working on revising the Fedora release criteria. John Poelstra had already fleshed out a structure and much of the final content, and we've been revising and tweaking it in conjunction with QA (myself, Will Woods and James Laska), release engineering (Jesse Keating),